Relativity?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:56 am

Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:25 am
Hence my argument about the shared consciousness of observers and how that ruins Einstein's thought experiment with the Train observer and Embankment observer. Instead of accepting the thought experiment of mine, they decided to discuss if communication of information can be superluminal.
Haven't paid entire attention to your posts since you don't seem to accept the principle of relativity (which pre-dates Galileo).
Einstein's relativity is not about consciousness or what is experienced. Not sure what you think the train and embankment observers are observing. Perhaps a quick link to your experiment would help since the thread is too large to hunt it down.
I assure you that you don't have something that ruins Einstein's thought experiments. Would have been done long ago if it were that easy.
Perhaps try to understand the theory before declaring it invalid.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:00 am

Noax wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:56 am
Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 1:25 am
Hence my argument about the shared consciousness of observers and how that ruins Einstein's thought experiment with the Train observer and Embankment observer. Instead of accepting the thought experiment of mine, they decided to discuss if communication of information can be superluminal.
Haven't paid entire attention to your posts since you don't seem to accept the principle of relativity (which pre-dates Galileo).
Einstein's relativity is not about consciousness or what is experienced. Not sure what you think the train and embankment observers are observing. Perhaps a quick link to your experiment would help since the thread is too large to hunt it down.
I assure you that you don't have something that ruins Einstein's thought experiments. Would have been done long ago if it were that easy.
Perhaps try to understand the theory before declaring it invalid.
Let us say that Embankment Observer and Train Observer had shared consciousness. Let us say that both have two cameras and TV screen connected with a live feed and both have light-clocks of their own. The Embankment Observer had a TV,  with a camera looking at the Embankment from the Train's own Point-of-View and a camera looking at the inside of the Train. And the Train Observer with a camera looking at the Train from the Embankment's Point-of-View and a camera looking at the Embankment from it's own Point-of-View, with the TV giving him the live feed. Thus they share a consciousness in a sense. Now, would both observe the same thing or not?

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:19 am

Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:00 am

Let us say that Embankment Observer and Train Observer had shared consciousness. Let us say that both have two cameras and TV screen connected with a live feed and both have light-clocks of their own.
This 'live feed' presumes absolute time and thus a viable simultaneity of separated events. The whole setup is thus begging a different universe than the one we're in. As I said, it is not about consciousness. If you want a camera feed, fine, but it takes time for signals to travel from an observation point to somewhere remote.

An observer in all Einstein's examples is just a point of observation that experiences the here and now of just that point and nothing else.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:42 am

Noax wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:19 am
Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:00 am

Let us say that Embankment Observer and Train Observer had shared consciousness. Let us say that both have two cameras and TV screen connected with a live feed and both have light-clocks of their own.
This 'live feed' presumes absolute time and thus a viable simultaneity of separated events. The whole setup is thus begging a different universe than the one we're in. As I said, it is not about consciousness. If you want a camera feed, fine, but it takes time for signals to travel from an observation point to somewhere remote.

An observer in all Einstein's examples is just a point of observation that experiences the here and now of just that point and nothing else.
If it presupposes or not simultaneity, then how exactly does it NOT disprove Einstein? I could just as well use shared consciousness instead of cameras. Observers are always in the present, and if this presupposes simultaneity, then Einstein's theory is wrong solely based upon common and self-evident experience. But! Observers ARE in the present, otherwise Einstein wouldn't be able to carry his observers 'through time' so to speak, and to observe the very change that occurs through time-dilation and length-contraction and observe the light-clock's ticks so-to-speak. The present is ever-present, and if that's the only observation that disproves Einstein, then so be it, because it is self-evident.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:00 am

Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:42 am
If it presupposes or not simultaneity, then how exactly does it NOT disprove Einstein?
Ambiguity of simultaneity follows trivially from a fixed light speed. It's pretty much the first thing that comes out of the thought experiments, even before math is applied to the situation. So to presuppose a scenario that has a concept demonstrated incompatible with fixed light speed (as is empirically measured) is to contradict the sole premise: fixed speed of light in any frame. Your scenario is falsified by empirical observation.
Observers are always in the present
'The present' is an interpretative assertion. The existence of such a thing does not follow from light speed being fixed. Observers are also always 'here', but 'the here' is also an interpretative assertion, one not usually held, but unsupportable for the same reasons.

It's been fun, but I see things have already decomposed into what is 'self evident' to you. So be it. I was hoping for some proposed empirical falsification.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Thu Nov 16, 2017 5:20 pm

Noax wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:19 am
Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:00 am

Let us say that Embankment Observer and Train Observer had shared consciousness. Let us say that both have two cameras and TV screen connected with a live feed and both have light-clocks of their own.
This 'live feed' presumes absolute time and thus a viable simultaneity of separated events. The whole setup is thus begging a different universe than the one we're in. As I said, it is not about consciousness. If you want a camera feed, fine, but it takes time for signals to travel from an observation point to somewhere remote.
Indeed I already explained exactly this to Viveka. And yet, as though he/she did not read the post, it's the same old question recycled all over again, as if it had not already been answered! Amazing!

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm

What Viveka doesn’t understand is that “now” is a relative concept in relativity theory — indeed, this is the very derivation of the name! The “theory of relativity” refers to the relativity of simultaneity.

Which is to say, what I count as “now” may not be the same as what you count as “now,” if we are different relative motion.

As illustrated here:

Image

The “now” of one observer counts the time order of events as follows: A, B, C.

The “now” of a second observer counts A, B, and C as happening simultaneously.

The “now” of a third observer counts the time order of events as follows: C, B, A.

Who is right? They’re all right!

But they clearly don’t all share the same “now.”

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6056
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:17 pm

davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm
What Viveka doesn’t understand is that “now” is a relative concept in relativity theory — indeed, this is the very derivation of the name! The “theory of relativity” refers to the relativity of simultaneity.

Which is to say, what I count as “now” may not be the same as what you count as “now,” if we are different relative motion.

As illustrated here:

Image

The “now” of one observer counts the time order of events as follows: A, B, C.

The “now” of a second observer counts A, B, and C as happening simultaneously.

The “now” of a third observer counts the time order of events as follows: C, B, A.

Who is right? They’re all right!

But they clearly don’t all share the same “now.”
Actually they do...don't get me wrong you're presentation is 100% correct. I won't bother arguing because I agree with it entirely...simple and to the point, real nice actually.

But it simultaneously shows, at the same time in a different respect, ABC having space move around them, as ABC maintain that same linear pattern in a seperate dimension.

In this respect spatial movement is strictly an extension of ABC with each "bleep" happening all at once with corresponding spatial distortions.

Your presentation fails to take into account that it "exists" in time itself, and relative to a "unified whole" ABC all Bleeped simultaneously and the "curvature" (as time) you are observing is a static structure in a different respect as the Ether.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm

Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:17 pm
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm
What Viveka doesn’t understand is that “now” is a relative concept in relativity theory — indeed, this is the very derivation of the name! The “theory of relativity” refers to the relativity of simultaneity.

Which is to say, what I count as “now” may not be the same as what you count as “now,” if we are different relative motion.

As illustrated here:

Image

The “now” of one observer counts the time order of events as follows: A, B, C.

The “now” of a second observer counts A, B, and C as happening simultaneously.

The “now” of a third observer counts the time order of events as follows: C, B, A.

Who is right? They’re all right!

But they clearly don’t all share the same “now.”
Actually they do...don't get me wrong you're presentation is 100% correct. I won't bother arguing because I agree with it entirely...simple and to the point, real nice actually.

But it simultaneously shows, at the same time in a different respect, ABC having space move around them, as ABC maintain that same linear pattern in a seperate dimension.

In this respect spatial movement is strictly an extension of ABC with each "bleep" happening all at once with corresponding spatial distortions.

Your presentation fails to take into account that it "exists" in time itself, and relative to a "unified whole" ABC all Bleeped simultaneously and the "curvature" (as time) you are observing is a static structure in a different respect as the Ether.
Well, I’m afraid I don’t quite get what you’re saying above, especially the “ether” part.

What this animation is showing us is that “now” is an indexical, just like “here.” What I count as “now” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “now,” but it’s also true that what I count as “here” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “here” if we are in two different places.

The three different “nows” in the above animation are best thought of as planes of simultaneity, which will differ for different observers in relative motion.

We can simplify further and go back to Einstein’s original relativistic train thought experiment. A train rushes by relative to an observer on the embankment in a ground frame. An observer on the train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from the front and back of the train. When the train reaches a point where the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are “lined up,” lightning flashes occur. One bolt hits the front of the train, and the other hits the back of the train.

In the Einstein gedanken, the observer on the ground sees the flashes hitting the front and back of the train simultaneously. The observer on the train, however, sees the flash at the front of the train first, and then sometime later sees the flash at the back of the train. This is because of the invariance of c and I’m not going to rehash this. It’s for the same reason as the different behaviors of the light clocks (or any clocks).

But since this is a philosophy board, let’s examine the philosophy of this situation. Notice that for the observer on the train, the future is fixed and unalterable, even though the train observer doesn’t know what the future holds. The future holds a lightning flash at the back of the train — not a tortilla at the back of the train, not nothing at the back of the train, not a surprise visit from Santa or Jesus at the back of the train. It’s going to be a lightning flash, period.

Is, then, relativity merely epistemological or is it ontological?

I suggest it’s ontological. What relativity theory is telling us is that the future is set — it “already” exists, in a manner of speaking. What we indexically call “now” is merely a cross-section of a pre-existent 4-D reality, in which past, present and future are all set in stone — all exist — and cannot be altered.

From this we can infer as follows: We do not wholly exist at the indexical “now.” We exist spread out across time in the same way we exist spread out across space (from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet). Our body parts are our spatial parts. Our existence spread out across time means that in like fashion we have temporal parts.

But then you can throw quantum mechanics into this nice neat scenario and once again everything may go kerflooey! :x

Eodnhoj7
Posts: 6056
Joined: Mon Mar 13, 2017 3:18 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Eodnhoj7 » Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:24 pm

davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 8:18 pm
Eodnhoj7 wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 7:17 pm
davidm wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 6:03 pm
What Viveka doesn’t understand is that “now” is a relative concept in relativity theory — indeed, this is the very derivation of the name! The “theory of relativity” refers to the relativity of simultaneity.

Which is to say, what I count as “now” may not be the same as what you count as “now,” if we are different relative motion.

As illustrated here:

Image

The “now” of one observer counts the time order of events as follows: A, B, C.

The “now” of a second observer counts A, B, and C as happening simultaneously.

The “now” of a third observer counts the time order of events as follows: C, B, A.

Who is right? They’re all right!

But they clearly don’t all share the same “now.”
Actually they do...don't get me wrong you're presentation is 100% correct. I won't bother arguing because I agree with it entirely...simple and to the point, real nice actually.

But it simultaneously shows, at the same time in a different respect, ABC having space move around them, as ABC maintain that same linear pattern in a seperate dimension.

In this respect spatial movement is strictly an extension of ABC with each "bleep" happening all at once with corresponding spatial distortions.

Your presentation fails to take into account that it "exists" in time itself, and relative to a "unified whole" ABC all Bleeped simultaneously and the "curvature" (as time) you are observing is a static structure in a different respect as the Ether.
Well, I’m afraid I don’t quite get what you’re saying above, especially the “ether” part.

What this animation is showing us is that “now” is an indexical, just like “here.” What I count as “now” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “now,” but it’s also true that what I count as “here” won’t necessarily be the same as what you count as “here” if we are in two different places.

The three different “nows” in the above animation are best thought of as planes of simultaneity, which will differ for different observers in relative motion.

We can simplify further and go back to Einstein’s original relativistic train thought experiment. A train rushes by relative to an observer on the embankment in a ground frame. An observer on the train sits in the middle of the train, equidistant from the front and back of the train. When the train reaches a point where the observer on the train and the observer on the ground are “lined up,” lightning flashes occur. One bolt hits the front of the train, and the other hits the back of the train.

In the Einstein gedanken, the observer on the ground sees the flashes hitting the front and back of the train simultaneously. The observer on the train, however, sees the flash at the front of the train first, and then sometime later sees the flash at the back of the train. This is because of the invariance of c and I’m not going to rehash this. It’s for the same reason as the different behaviors of the light clocks (or any clocks).

But since this is a philosophy board, let’s examine the philosophy of this situation. Notice that for the observer on the train, the future is fixed and unalterable, even though the train observer doesn’t know what the future holds. The future holds a lightning flash at the back of the train — not a tortilla at the back of the train, not nothing at the back of the train, not a surprise visit from Santa or Jesus at the back of the train. It’s going to be a lightning flash, period.

Is, then, relativity merely epistemological or is it ontological?

I suggest it’s ontological. What relativity theory is telling us is that the future is set — it “already” exists, in a manner of speaking. What we indexically call “now” is merely a cross-section of a pre-existent 4-D reality, in which past, present and future are all set in stone — all exist — and cannot be altered.

From this we can infer as follows: We do not wholly exist at the indexical “now.” We exist spread out across time in the same way we exist spread out across space (from the tops of our heads to the soles of our feet). Our body parts our spatial parts. Our existence spread out across time means that in like fashion we have temporal parts.

But then you can throw quantum mechanics into this nice neat scenario and once again everything may go kerflooey! :x
Here I'll simplify it:

Relativity is "movement" as space.

Ether is "stability" as space.


Stability and movement can coexist at the same time in different respects as they are two dimensions of the same thing.

Ethereal space is unavoidable as it allows the stability for something to exist, such as the concept of Relativity.

Relativity is perpetual motion resulting as a dual of ethereal space.

I am not arguing against relativity but rather saying it is a dimension of space in and of itself as "perpetual movement".

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:03 am

Noax wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:00 am
Viveka wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 2:42 am
If it presupposes or not simultaneity, then how exactly does it NOT disprove Einstein?
Ambiguity of simultaneity follows trivially from a fixed light speed. It's pretty much the first thing that comes out of the thought experiments, even before math is applied to the situation. So to presuppose a scenario that has a concept demonstrated incompatible with fixed light speed (as is empirically measured) is to contradict the sole premise: fixed speed of light in any frame. Your scenario is falsified by empirical observation.
My scenario cannot be falsified by empirical observation; it's a thought experiment, which you ignored because it proves EInstein wrong even though it isn't empirically falsifiable.
Noax wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:00 am
Observers are always in the present
'The present' is an interpretative assertion. The existence of such a thing does not follow from light speed being fixed. Observers are also always 'here', but 'the here' is also an interpretative assertion, one not usually held, but unsupportable for the same reasons.
Just because the present doesn't follow from light speed being fixed doesn't mean that it is wrong to say the present exists. If the present exists, then there is simultaneity, the present exists, therefore, Einstein is wrong.
Noax wrote:
Thu Nov 16, 2017 4:00 am
It's been fun, but I see things have already decomposed into what is 'self evident' to you. So be it. I was hoping for some proposed empirical falsification.
Like I said, it's a thought-experiment which you have ignored.

User avatar
Noax
Posts: 670
Joined: Wed Aug 10, 2016 3:25 am

Re: Relativity?

Post by Noax » Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:40 am

Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:03 am
My scenario cannot be falsified by empirical observation; it's a thought experiment, which you ignored because it proves EInstein wrong even though it isn't empirically falsifiable.
Thought experiments are proof of nothing. They merely suggest ways to verify them. Yours does, and doesn't fare well.
Just because the present doesn't follow from light speed being fixed doesn't mean that it is wrong to say the present exists. If the present exists, then there is simultaneity, the present exists, therefore, Einstein is wrong.
Einstein said no such thing. His work shows that it is undetectable, but not that it doesn't exist.
Like I said, it's a thought-experiment which you have ignored.
Haven't. It presupposes super-luminal physics. Fails without leaving the gate.

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:06 am

Noax wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 1:40 am
Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:03 am
My scenario cannot be falsified by empirical observation; it's a thought experiment, which you ignored because it proves EInstein wrong even though it isn't empirically falsifiable.
Thought experiments are proof of nothing. They merely suggest ways to verify them. Yours does, and doesn't fare well.
Just because the present doesn't follow from light speed being fixed doesn't mean that it is wrong to say the present exists. If the present exists, then there is simultaneity, the present exists, therefore, Einstein is wrong.
Einstein said no such thing. His work shows that it is undetectable, but not that it doesn't exist.
Like I said, it's a thought-experiment which you have ignored.
Haven't. It presupposes super-luminal physics. Fails without leaving the gate.
Fine. I won't argue with you about this any longer. How about this thought-experiment?

If light is given off as a spherical wavefront from a certain light-clock, and if the motion of the light-clock on a train is sufficient, then length-contraction and time-dilation would occur. If so, would it deform the light's geometry to an ellipsoid since it travels through this space and time that is contracted and dilated?

If the light's geometry is an ellipsoid, then it is a non-inertial reference frame, and, on top of that, it wouldn't travel as a sphere even though it must in all inertial frames due to the invariance of the speed of light in all directions.

davidm
Posts: 1155
Joined: Sat May 27, 2017 7:30 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by davidm » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:12 am

Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:03 am
Just because the present doesn't follow from light speed being fixed doesn't mean that it is wrong to say the present exists. If the present exists, then there is simultaneity, the present exists, therefore, Einstein is wrong.
:lol:

Umm... yes, the "present" exists. It's just that what we call "the present" differs for observers in different inertial frames.

Did you even read my posts just above? Did you look at the animated diagram I posted?

Viveka
Posts: 369
Joined: Wed Sep 27, 2017 9:06 pm

Re: Relativity?

Post by Viveka » Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:58 am

davidm wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 2:12 am
Viveka wrote:
Fri Nov 17, 2017 12:03 am
Just because the present doesn't follow from light speed being fixed doesn't mean that it is wrong to say the present exists. If the present exists, then there is simultaneity, the present exists, therefore, Einstein is wrong.
:lol:

Umm... yes, the "present" exists. It's just that what we call "the present" differs for observers in different inertial frames.

Did you even read my posts just above? Did you look at the animated diagram I posted?
That's interesting, because the present can never vary between absolute awarenesses. The awareness may differ in 'here' but not 'now'. Anyways, what does 'ct' mean in your diagram? Celeritas multiplied by time as an obverse time, or frequency as an inverse time?
Last edited by Viveka on Fri Nov 17, 2017 3:06 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests